Rama Agariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 615 Chatt

                                                                          NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   CRA No. 519 of 2015

   • Rama Agariya S/o Late Bhikham Agariya Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
     - Saraipara, Khuthanpara, Police Station - Ramanujnagar, District
     Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

                                                                  ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
     - Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

                                                               ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Rama Kant Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Judgment on Board 25/06/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2015 passed in S.T. No.

467/2011 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur,

District Surajpur (C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay

fine of Rs. 100/-, with default stipulation.

2. In this case, prosecutrix is a major and married lady and the Appellant

is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix. On 17.08.2011, husband of the

prosecutrix went towards basti for charging of mobile, at that time, the

Appellant came in the house of the prosecutrix and caught hold her

hands and taken her inside the house, where he committed forcible

sexual intercourse with her against her will. At that time, the husband of the prosecutrix came there and saw the incident. Thereafter, the

prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband. They both have

gone to inform about the incident to Surpanch of village namely

Madhu Singh. Thereafter, they lodged a report in concerned Police

Station. On the basis of said report, FIR has been registered against

the Appellant. Later on statement of the prosecutrix and other

witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the Trial

Court has framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the

prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses. No defense

witness has been examined by the Appellant. Statement of the

Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he

has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

3. After trial, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant

as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. A certificate of incarceration sent by the Jail Superintendent, Central

Jail, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) would mention that the Appellant has

undergone the entire jail sentence imposed upon him by the Trial

Court and already released from jail on 08.01.2020.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that without

there being any clinching and reliable evidence available on record,

the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant. He further submits that

there are material contradiction and omissions occurred in the

statement of the witnesses and by ignoring these facts, the Trial Court

has wrongly convicted the Appellant, therefore, conviction of the

Appellant is not sustainable.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the

Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of

conviction.

8. In her Court statement, prosecutrix (PW-1) supported the entire case

of the prosecution and categorically deposed that on the date of

incident, she was in her house at that time, the Appellant came inside

the house and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.

Immediately after the incident, her husband came there and she

narrated the entire incident to her husband. The above statement of

the prosecutrix, has duly corroborated by Shivbar Das (PW-2), Kotwar.

Both the above witnesses remain firmed during their cross-

examination. However, Shivbaran Agariya (PW-5), husband of the

prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned

hostile, but the statements of the prosecutrix and Shivbar Das (PW-2)

have supported the entire case of the prosecution. There is nothing on

record on the basis of which, their statements can be disbelieved.

9. From the evidence available on record and looking to the entire case

of prosecution, there is sufficient evidence available on record against

the Appellant and the crime has duly proved against him. Thus, the

Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

10. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham